What’s missing from the big Senate energy bill? A role for natural gas. Shifting one-third of the country’s coal plants to natural gas would go a long way toward meeting emissions-reduction targets, in Earth2Tech.

Whatever the Senate bill’s merits, it is “unlikely” it will be passed in time for Copenhagen, White House adviser Carol Browner said, and that will make the U.S. negotiating position at the climate summit even tougher, in the NYT and The Guardian.

Unless the prospect of EPA regulation does the trick. The EPA’s outline for regulating greenhouse-gas emissions is widely seen as a prod to encourage companies to support legislation. The WSJ edit page thinks that’s a horse’s head: “In Sicily and parts of New Jersey, they call that an offer you can’t refuse.”

Securing an international deal on climate change means securing a domestic deal first, notes the WaPo—that’s why so many veterans of Kyoto are trying to avoid the mistakes made a decade ago. And that domestic landscape is an ever-shifting one, with automakers and some utilities now backing, not fighting, climate legislation, in the WSJ.

The international landscape is shifting too. Despite plenty of saber-rattling, India is eager to be seen as a deal-maker, not a deal-breaker, at Copenhagen, in the NYT. Europe sticks to its guns, meanwhile, drafting plans for a carbon tax of between 10 and 30 euros per ton, in the WSJ.

Toyota says it aims to bring a plug-in Prius to the U.S. market in 2012, in the L.A. Times. The fallout from cash-for-clunkers continues, as evidence indicates the plan fell short of both economic and environmental goals. The WSJ edit page: “In the category of all-time dumb ideas, cash for clunkers rivals the New Deal brainstorm to slaughter pigs to raise pork prices.”

The L.A. Times edit page wonders why, just as big-screen TVs are making so many advances in energy efficiency, the state has to “force-march” the industry toward a greener future.

The U.K. gets ready this week for the third round of licensing in its huge offshore wind program, in The Guardian.

Germany’s nuclear future might get a little clearer this week. The re-elected government aims to extend the lifespan of nuclear plants, but only in exchange for a big chunk of utilities’ nuclear profits, in the FT. The United Arab Emirates are going nuclear too, with the passage of a nuclear law to safeguard development of civilian nuclear energy, in the WSJ.

Finally, investors concerned about the environment have a growing number of green investment plays, notes the WSJ—but the sector’s narrow focus means investors better be ready for a wild ride.

Comments (1 of 1)

Anna Prior's WSJ "green investment plays" is a decent overview but perpetuates a major error I've seen repeated over and over by those proffering investment advice in this sector.
The first line of any such article should carry the warning:
THESE ARE RENT-SEEKING ENTITIES! THIS MEANS THAT THEIR INVESTMENTS WITH THE GREATEST RETURN (ROI) IS IN LOBBYISTS
(I'm not kidding, I've seen 100:1 and above).
If the investor is naive enough to believe that these are anything more than political bets gussied up in green they risk very large losses. As Walter Cronkite used to say "...And that's the way it is".
You've got some smart writers, why not talk to some futuists on the risk to current technologies posed by, say, nanotechnology?

About Environmental Capital

Environmental Capital provides daily news and analysis of the shifting energy and environmental landscape. The Wall Street Journal’s Keith Johnson is the lead writer. Environmental Capital is led by Journal energy reporter Russell Gold, and includes contributions from other writers at the Journal, WSJ.com, and Dow Jones Newswires. Write us at environmentalcapital@wsj.com.